Cars Might Fly


Cloud world As I walk home humming to my iPod, I can pretty much keep station with the cars crawling along next to me. Sometimes one of us inches ahead of the other, but rarely do either of us have a decisive advantage. Many a time I have reflected on the absurdity of this situation as I realise that by some measures we seem to have hardly progressed since humans learned to walk on two legs.

As more and more of us become city dwellers (today over half the world’s population lives in cities), the car is becoming more and more ridiculous as a mode of transport as our cities’ arteries become increasingly clogged with cars barely travelling at walking pace.

But despite this problem becoming evermore obvious, we continue to cling doggedly to the car, wholly unwilling to give it up for the horrors of public transport.

So what’s the answer?

Perhaps it’s time for the return of the flying car idea? Richard Jones of Boeing unveiled the solution for city gridlock yesterday with the vision of a green flying car that will be the "cleanest transportation of the future".

"When your 100mpg (miles per gallon) car is stuck in traffic and a 100mpg airplane whizzes overhead, you’re going to be jealous." Richard Jones, Boeing.

I probably am going to be pretty jealous, until you try and park it.

My point is that considering the physical space limitations within most cities - which are likely to get worse and not better - we probably need to let go of the idea of personal transportation until we stop multiplying.

I recently provided an example of the reason we are having difficulty with this, to which my colleague Daryl provided the following comment:

My only real issue is the over-crowding during peak times. I would gladly pay more for a less crowded train, perhaps one that is not 25 people over stated capacity, but the idea of transit class of service would be a logistical nightmare.

But it would be cool, first class buses and train cars with Internet and Newspapers, TV’s and coffee service and the all important Canadian food group, doughnuts!

I feel a transit company idea coming on!

This is the real solution.

If we could apply the same level of ingenuity and entrepreneurship that has developed the automobile to what it is today, developed the personal computer into something usable, put the Internet into so many of our homes, given us cell phones, Tivo, and which threatens every now and then to bring us flying cars to the problem of making public transport "cool", then we may have made the breakthough of the century - the payback in terms of happiness, productivity, and particularly the environment would be incalculable.

However, as they say, cars might fly.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
Betting on Climate Change - How Do Scientists Resolve Differences?
TalkClimateChange Takes a Holiday -Something To Consider In The Meantime

Tags


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Reader Comments

The problem is not the availability of cars.

It is the behavoral culture of the people.Who have from infancy been tied to the automobile.

Go to the store,the church,the baseball game,the moviehouse and so on.

Another problem is that giant stores (thus lower prices) in a large city can be at one end of that big city.Creating additional traffic problems.

Weaning them off partly is a proven difficulty.Try having a family riding the transit system.The Van is a far more desirable and easy choice.I have such a family.The Van simply takes OUT so much of the hassle of carrying the family around.

In my town we have a good transit system.That is paid partly by a county tax (it was voted in by the people) and a small trip fare fee at each boarding.The school students love it.

Flying cars will not solve anything since they will soon ALL be in the air and once again a traffic snarl shows up.

But at least it is safe to walk in the cities again.

LOL

Let us start by imagining a world where public transport is the norm. The proceeds of the general income and sales taxes mostly fund it, plus a little from riders so that they’ll respect it. Private conveyances exist, but no-one thinks of taking them anywhere that, so to speak, *is* anywhere because to all such places, public transit is better.

Now imagine the government makes a small change. Recognizing that private vehicles provide transit planners a valuable service by clustering at places that are beginning to be, or may soon begin go be, somewhere, government requires the public transit authority to pay a portion of private vehicle operators’ fuel costs.

In paying this money, the authority is essentially paying for information about where it could find more work … well, it still has to go out and gather the information, go out and detect the places where cars are repeatedly being parked. But the operators of the cars have to create that information, so it’s fair.

If, as an evil government minister, you wanted to sabotage this pleasant system, how might you go about it?

Let us start by imagining a world where public transport is the norm. The proceeds of the general income and sales taxes mostly fund it, plus a little from riders so that they’ll respect it. Private conveyances exist, but no-one thinks of taking them anywhere that, so to speak, *is* anywhere because to all such places, public transit is better.

Perhaps we should start here on planet earth instead of Planet Socialist Utopia where you are starting.

The way to solve the issues is to start in reality and work forward not start at a fantasy destination and work backwards.

WAIT I know! divert the money from.. lets see health care… into public transit, nope that is not good. I know!!! we just change everyone the equivilent that they would pay to own a car! We will call it the un-car - tax what someone would pay for car payments, insurance, up-keep and fuel, lets charge them that for public transit use! How sharing of the common property would that would be?

This is the problem with most green ideas, lots of vision just not real good at execution because when you do not even have a basic understanding of how civilization functions, you are never going to be able to suggest meaningful changes.

They rest of your plan is invasive socialism part two. Thanks but no thanks. Why not use everyone’s on-star and lojacks to track their movements? Why not RFID everyone and then you can model the transit system better? Who is riding where and when and how long they are staying?

Hey and I am not even an evil governmental minister and I can sabotage your plan. Who knew?

I had tried to stay clear of the inevitable public funding / socialism debate when I wrote the post, however it looks like it happened anyway.

I do believe that governments must play an important part in public transport development, through planning, incentivisiation and other mechanisms – although when I wrote “If we could apply the same level of ingenuity and entrepreneurship that has developed the automobile” I was of the mind that the “we solve the problem by making the tax payer cough up” argument is not a solution.

We need to get a bit more creative, and thing about how PT can be made profitable, desirable and ultimately viable as an alternative to the car..

Mark:
As a guy who lives in a walkable small city - Annapolis, MD - and works in a big city with a reasonably good public transportation system - Washington, DC - I have to disagree with your view that there is no real place for private surface transportation.

The times at which walking can compete with an automobile for speed, comfort and carrying capacity are very limited. If one simply choses a slightly different travel time, the roads that are packed at peak hours can be very nice conduits that enable speeds far higher than what one can obtain on foot. My car pool buddies and I leave Annapolis at 5:45 each morning and I am at my desk with a cup of coffee by 6:45. (The times given include the overhead of parking in a nearby garage, walking to my office and riding the elevator to the 6th floor of my high rise office building.)

Since we arrive early, we also depart a bit earlier than many commuters and generally make it home in a slightly longer amount of time.

One thing that helps is that there are a lot of local employers who provide subsidies for their people to ride on public transport, including my own employer. Even though I do not choose to take the subsidy, I have no issue at all with my employer spending money that way. I also like the fact that some of our fuel taxes help pay for public transport. One way to keep the roads clear is to encourage all of the people who can conveniently ride the Metro to do so.

The closest train station is about 20 miles from my home. If I try to use public transportation, I have to drive to the station, park my car and wait for the train. I have to switch trains in downtown to cross a river to get to my office. The closest station to my office is a pleasant, but time consuming 20 minute walk. The absolute fastest I have ever made it from home to office is an hour and 45 minutes. The way home is a bit slower, and also includes a generally unpleasant 40 minute standing journey since the trains departing downtown are usually overcrowded. Since the trains are often crowded, my gym bag and laptop case are not very welcome. Those are not a problem when I have a car with a trunk.

One might suggest that I simply move closer to my place of work, but my wife works just 3 miles from our home and fills her tank about once every 2 weeks.

Nope - I like cars. I like the freedom that they provide and like living in a place where I have a bit more space than I would have in a city. The key is to figure out ways to reduce their impact while recognizing that they provide valuable service. Contrary to popular belief, Americans do not love their cars because of the commercials, they are attached to them because of the services that they can provide.

Fully agree with you Rod, there is a place for the car. Unfortunately we find them heavily populated in the wrong places, and rarely sensibly populated in the right places..

Adams is of course right: cars make sense. That people prefer to use them does not amount to “clinging doggedly”.

But I think he is wrong to “like the fact that some of our fuel taxes help pay for public transport”. Notice how this is different from the thought experiment I set up, where some of the public transit authority’s budget subsidizes private motorists.

If the bus operator profits from private motoring, his job is to keep the buses empty. If it costs the bus operator money when people take the car, it’s his job to beat the car. He gains when he takes people where they want to go, when they want to go there, with the stuff they want to bring.

Sure, in many circumstances people prefer to use them - for obvious reasons.

But in London, for instance, cars move at an average speed of 10mph (similar to a horse and carriage) - even slower during rush hour. This can hardly be a clever way to get about when a city such as London has so many transport alternatives.

So in this regard I consider that many people are clinging doggedly. I just don’t believe that there isn’t a better way.

G. R. L.

I am sorry to disagree, but the bus driver is at a severe disadvantage. His conveyance has to fight the same traffic as the cars, and he has to make stops for the convenience of many people rather than just a few.

No, I think that people need encouragement to ride public transport and I am happy to pay a bit to get them off of the road if possible.

Rod, I’m not sure we actually disagree, although, to your rundown of the bus driver’s difficulties, I would add one advantage: he doesn’t have to find a parking spot.

You are happy to pay a little to get “them” — people needing encouragement — off the road, but if the way you do that is by driving, then the bus driver is happy that you are doing so.

It would be better if the little that you are happy to pay came from taxation on some other aspect of your life; transit operators might then strive to make you think of transit-riders in some other way than third person plural.

GRL Cowan

Seriously you ae proposing that the transit system pays drivers, because you feel the motivation of the public funded transit system from taxes on drivers promotes the transit operators to want people to stay in their cars?

Please do tell me how you pay for this? You state simply genral income and sales taxes, but the public transit systems are inadaquately funded now, so where does this money come from?

Since it is all public funds what would be the public transit operator’s motivation, public funding creates more public funding and so on and so on, when you feed at the endless public buffet it is very easy to get fat.

If drivers are being paid what would be their motivation to stop?

Privatization of transit systems is the only answer, many a fortune was built on transit, private companies need to be profitable, and revenue is from riders, so every effort will be made to provide a a cleaner, safer, more efficent service to that ends.

This is the answer, less government and more faith in people, not more and more public funding.

The government portion would be infrastructure support, lanes for transit, rail lines, public lands for transfer stations, rails and transit lanes.

Less is more in solving issues regarding urban public services and the government. The ideology of public ownership of public services has run it;s course, time for re-regulation and incentive based policies to promote real business opportunities.